Anyone used both Nikon 200-500 and Tamron 150-600 G2?

[CMCM]

I'm wondering if anyone has had the chance to compare or perhaps has owned these two lenses. I recently rented the Tamron for a few days, and a person at the camera shop stated he liked it better than the Nikon for a variety of reasons he outlined, but I'm curious if anyone else is familiar with these two. The Tamron I rented was surprisingly nice, and I liked several features on it that were unique to the Tamron. It's also .6 lb lighter than the Nikon.

 

[TQGroup]

I'm wondering if anyone has had the chance to compare or perhaps has owned these two lenses. I recently rented the Tamron for a few days, and a person at the camera shop stated he liked it better than the Nikon for a variety of reasons he outlined, but I'm curious if anyone else is familiar with these two. The Tamron I rented was surprisingly nice, and I liked several features on it that were unique to the Tamron. It's also .6 lb lighter than the Nikon.

A world war has been waged over this and there is a fair chance of peace being declared with North Korea first

I've extensively tested and used the Nikon over several years and much prefer the Tamron for what my needs are.

A few points that matter to me:

The Nikon is really 200-480mm. I shoot my Tamron at 550mm or more 90% of the time.

The Tamron is fully weather-sealed and has Tamron's best coatings.

The Tamron has a superior 3 way VC/VR system. I use mode 3 which partially stabilises the image in the viewfinder and then fully stabilises the shot at 4.5 stops CIPA. This gives me constant feedback about my technique... absolutely, vitally critical when shooting hand held at the long end. Of course, Tamron VC position 1 works just like Nikon.

The Tamron zooms out to 150mm, perfect when the subject gets large and going back is not a good option. Also great for BIFs if the subject flies close. It is possible to zoom out and not clip wings.

The Tamron has an optional dock for tuning the lens. For example, I have changed a focus range to better suit my needs. BTW, we have around 6 Tamron's in our group. There are no problems that I know of and the Gen 2's have not required any fine-tuning.

I do not know what your use cases are; however, I found this particular review very useful: https://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-g2

Good luck with your choice.

Cheers, Andrew

 

[CMCM]

I'm wondering if anyone has had the chance to compare or perhaps has owned these two lenses. I recently rented the Tamron for a few days, and a person at the camera shop stated he liked it better than the Nikon for a variety of reasons he outlined, but I'm curious if anyone else is familiar with these two. The Tamron I rented was surprisingly nice, and I liked several features on it that were unique to the Tamron. It's also .6 lb lighter than the Nikon.

A world war has been waged over this and there is a fair chance of peace being declared with North Korea first

I've extensively tested and used the Nikon over several years and much prefer the Tamron for what my needs are.

A few points that matter to me:

The Nikon is really 200-480mm. I shoot my Tamron at 550mm or more 90% of the time.

The Tamron is fully weather-sealed and has Tamron's best coatings.

The Tamron has a superior 3 way VC/VR system. I use mode 3 which partially stabilises the image in the viewfinder and then fully stabilises the shot at 4.5 stops CIPA. This gives me constant feedback about my technique... absolutely, vitally critical when shooting hand held at the long end. Of course, Tamron VC position 1 works just like Nikon.

I just read something about the VC needing to be switched off when you remove or put on the lens. Do you know anything about that?

When I rented the lens, I didn't know how to use the 3 VC settings, unfortunately. When you say the mode 3 gives you constant feedback about technique...what do you mean?

The Tamron zooms out to 150mm, perfect when the subject gets large and going back is not a good option. Also great for BIFs if the subject flies close. It is possible to zoom out and not clip wings.

I really liked the zoom and how you can lock it at any FL. It's not too loose when turning the zoom, which I like.

The Tamron has an optional dock for tuning the lens. For example, I have changed a focus range to better suit my needs. BTW, we have around 6 Tamron's in our group. There are no problems that I know of and the Gen 2's have not required any fine-tuning.

What do you mean you changed a focus range with the dock?

I do not know what your use cases are; however, I found this particular review very useful: https://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-g2

Good luck with your choice.

Cheers, Andrew

Thanks for the info. I have to say I loved the G2, but kept thinking isn't the Nikon supposed to be better, that seems to be what all the birders shoot...

 

[TQGroup]

I'm wondering if anyone has had the chance to compare or perhaps has owned these two lenses. I recently rented the Tamron for a few days, and a person at the camera shop stated he liked it better than the Nikon for a variety of reasons he outlined, but I'm curious if anyone else is familiar with these two. The Tamron I rented was surprisingly nice, and I liked several features on it that were unique to the Tamron. It's also .6 lb lighter than the Nikon.

A world war has been waged over this and there is a fair chance of peace being declared with North Korea first

I've extensively tested and used the Nikon over several years and much prefer the Tamron for what my needs are.

A few points that matter to me:

The Nikon is really 200-480mm. I shoot my Tamron at 550mm or more 90% of the time.

The Tamron is fully weather-sealed and has Tamron's best coatings.

The Tamron has a superior 3 way VC/VR system. I use mode 3 which partially stabilises the image in the viewfinder and then fully stabilises the shot at 4.5 stops CIPA. This gives me constant feedback about my technique... absolutely, vitally critical when shooting hand held at the long end. Of course, Tamron VC position 1 works just like Nikon.

I just read something about the VC needing to be switched off when you remove or put on the lens. Do you know anything about that?

As I understand it, any Nikon VR or Tamron VC lens that receives power from the camera has the VR or VC system working all the time until it is switched off. Nikon told me that and I must admit, like most everyone I know, we always forget to switch it off.

When I rented the lens, I didn't know how to use the 3 VC settings, unfortunately. When you say the mode 3 gives you constant feedback about technique...what do you mean?

In Mode 3, the image is not fully stablised and jumps around a bit... similar if the VC/VR is turned off. So, if I see the image jumping about it means I'm not holding it as steady as I could; e,g, if it was on a tripod. So it makes me think about it and focus on my technique. Now, if it is a very small twitchy bird at a distance, I can always put it into Mode 1 (like Nikon mode 1) where the image is stabilised in the viewfinder as well as at exposure.

The Tamron zooms out to 150mm, perfect when the subject gets large and going back is not a good option. Also great for BIFs if the subject flies close. It is possible to zoom out and not clip wings.

I really liked the zoom and how you can lock it at any FL. It's not too loose when turning the zoom, which I like.

Agreed... nothing to complain about and superior to the Nikon.

The Tamron has an optional dock for tuning the lens. For example, I have changed a focus range to better suit my needs. BTW, we have around 6 Tamron's in our group. There are no problems that I know of and the Gen 2's have not required any fine-tuning.

What do you mean you changed a focus range with the dock?

There are focus range pre-sets on most zoom lenses. On the Tamron they are; FULL range; infinity to 2.2 metres, infinity to 10 metres and 2.2 metres (min.) to 10 metres. Using these presets means the lens AF can lock focus faster as it has a narrower range to work in. I changed the middle range to infinity to 5 metres, which suits me better.

I do not know what your use cases are; however, I found this particular review very useful: https://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-g2

Good luck with your choice.

Cheers, Andrew

Thanks for the info. I have to say I loved the G2, but kept thinking isn't the Nikon supposed to be better, that seems to be what all the birders shoot...

Interesting thoughts.

Better in what way? No, all the birders do not use the 200-500 Nikon. The best ones use very heavy and expensive primes whenever they can

In birding, reach is everything. The more "pixels on the bird" the better. Except when they come too close... then the flexibility of a good zoom carries the day.

I owned the Gen 1 Tamron when the Nikon 200-500 came out and we were all excited. Two in our group bought it and an excellent birder and I compared our Gen 1 Vs the new Nikon in Sydney.

We found that for BIFs, we could not acquire focus as reliably as we could with our Gen 1s. We arrived at this conclusion independently and used 4 different Nikon DSLRs in the process. So we kept our Gen 1s even though we expected to buy the new Nikons.

When the Gen 2 came out, I bought it and it is still my "go to" birding lens for its overall flexibility, shootability and image quality.

Since I bought my Gen 2, 3 others in our group have also bought it, 2 have kept their Gen 1s.

Very recently, one of our group sold his 200-500 and has bought a 500PF.

Nikon has not built the 200-500 lens to its highest standards, but to a price. It is a very decent lens but lacks weather-sealing, Nano crystal coat, etc. Nikon had to "geld" it to differentiate it from its pro lens offerings, including the 200-400/4, now a 180-400/4. Hint: don't look at the price until you are firmly seated :-D

The Tamron Gen 2, when introduced was Tamron's flagship lens with all the tech that Tamron could muster. You should get a much longer factory warranty with the Tamron than the Nikon.

As I've tested them, the Nikon has marginally superior image quality from 200mm to around a true 460mm or so. It is getting a little soft wide open at a true 480mm. It is not flash between 150mm to 200mm and not much better from 480mm to around 575mm, the true max for Tamron. It is a 2.5X zoom Vs the Tamron 4x zoom range.

There are a number of independent "reviews" out there. Why not read then (most are not on video or YouTube) to learn the issues, pros and cons and then apply this knowledge to your needs?

Cheers, Andrew

 

[DChapman]

I owned both lenses together for a few months and ended up selling the Nikon and keeping the Tamron. After much testing, I concluded that they were equally sharp so I considered their other attributes, and the Tamron came out on top for me for the following reasons:

(1) Better build quality with weather resistance

(2) Significantly faster autofocus

(3) Wider focal range

(4) Lighter weight

(5) Customization with the optional dock

The only area where I felt the 200-500 was superior was it's image stabilization, but the Tamron's is still very effective. I have not regretted my decision.

 

[larrywilson]

I have the Tamron 150-600 g2 and also the Nikon 500e lens. I use the g2 lens for longer hikes and the Nikon 500e for shorter hikes.

I have found the g2 has excellent image quality, almost as good as my 500e.

A very good vc system.

Its a real advantage to have a 600mm lens for my bird photography using my d500 to give me around 750mm of focal length without a tc.

Very good weather resistance.

I like the zoom lock.

Light enough to hand shoot.

A very well constructed lens.

Photographic Life has a very good article concerning the g2 and the article convinced me to purchase the g2.

Larry

 

[CMCM]

I'm wondering if anyone has had the chance to compare or perhaps has owned these two lenses. I recently rented the Tamron for a few days, and a person at the camera shop stated he liked it better than the Nikon for a variety of reasons he outlined, but I'm curious if anyone else is familiar with these two. The Tamron I rented was surprisingly nice, and I liked several features on it that were unique to the Tamron. It's also .6 lb lighter than the Nikon.

A world war has been waged over this and there is a fair chance of peace being declared with North Korea first

I've extensively tested and used the Nikon over several years and much prefer the Tamron for what my needs are.

A few points that matter to me:

The Nikon is really 200-480mm. I shoot my Tamron at 550mm or more 90% of the time.

The Tamron is fully weather-sealed and has Tamron's best coatings.

The Tamron has a superior 3 way VC/VR system. I use mode 3 which partially stabilises the image in the viewfinder and then fully stabilises the shot at 4.5 stops CIPA. This gives me constant feedback about my technique... absolutely, vitally critical when shooting hand held at the long end. Of course, Tamron VC position 1 works just like Nikon.

I just read something about the VC needing to be switched off when you remove or put on the lens. Do you know anything about that?

As I understand it, any Nikon VR or Tamron VC lens that receives power from the camera has the VR or VC system working all the time until it is switched off. Nikon told me that and I must admit, like most everyone I know, we always forget to switch it off.

When I rented the lens, I didn't know how to use the 3 VC settings, unfortunately. When you say the mode 3 gives you constant feedback about technique...what do you mean?

In Mode 3, the image is not fully stablised and jumps around a bit... similar if the VC/VR is turned off. So, if I see the image jumping about it means I'm not holding it as steady as I could; e,g, if it was on a tripod. So it makes me think about it and focus on my technique. Now, if it is a very small twitchy bird at a distance, I can always put it into Mode 1 (like Nikon mode 1) where the image is stabilised in the viewfinder as well as at exposure.

The Tamron zooms out to 150mm, perfect when the subject gets large and going back is not a good option. Also great for BIFs if the subject flies close. It is possible to zoom out and not clip wings.

I really liked the zoom and how you can lock it at any FL. It's not too loose when turning the zoom, which I like.

Agreed... nothing to complain about and superior to the Nikon.

The Tamron has an optional dock for tuning the lens. For example, I have changed a focus range to better suit my needs. BTW, we have around 6 Tamron's in our group. There are no problems that I know of and the Gen 2's have not required any fine-tuning.

What do you mean you changed a focus range with the dock?

There are focus range pre-sets on most zoom lenses. On the Tamron they are; FULL range; infinity to 2.2 metres, infinity to 10 metres and 2.2 metres (min.) to 10 metres. Using these presets means the lens AF can lock focus faster as it has a narrower range to work in. I changed the middle range to infinity to 5 metres, which suits me better.

I do not know what your use cases are; however, I found this particular review very useful: https://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-g2

Good luck with your choice.

Cheers, Andrew

Thanks for the info. I have to say I loved the G2, but kept thinking isn't the Nikon supposed to be better, that seems to be what all the birders shoot...

Interesting thoughts.

Better in what way? No, all the birders do not use the 200-500 Nikon. The best ones use very heavy and expensive primes whenever they can

In birding, reach is everything. The more "pixels on the bird" the better. Except when they come too close... then the flexibility of a good zoom carries the day.

I owned the Gen 1 Tamron when the Nikon 200-500 came out and we were all excited. Two in our group bought it and an excellent birder and I compared our Gen 1 Vs the new Nikon in Sydney.

We found that for BIFs, we could not acquire focus as reliably as we could with our Gen 1s. We arrived at this conclusion independently and used 4 different Nikon DSLRs in the process. So we kept our Gen 1s even though we expected to buy the new Nikons.

When the Gen 2 came out, I bought it and it is still my "go to" birding lens for its overall flexibility, shootability and image quality.

Since I bought my Gen 2, 3 others in our group have also bought it, 2 have kept their Gen 1s.

Very recently, one of our group sold his 200-500 and has bought a 500PF.

Nikon has not built the 200-500 lens to its highest standards, but to a price. It is a very decent lens but lacks weather-sealing, Nano crystal coat, etc. Nikon had to "geld" it to differentiate it from its pro lens offerings, including the 200-400/4, now a 180-400/4. Hint: don't look at the price until you are firmly seated :-D

The Tamron Gen 2, when introduced was Tamron's flagship lens with all the tech that Tamron could muster. You should get a much longer factory warranty with the Tamron than the Nikon.

As I've tested them, the Nikon has marginally superior image quality from 200mm to around a true 460mm or so. It is getting a little soft wide open at a true 480mm. It is not flash between 150mm to 200mm and not much better from 480mm to around 575mm, the true max for Tamron. It is a 2.5X zoom Vs the Tamron 4x zoom range.

There are a number of independent "reviews" out there. Why not read then (most are not on video or YouTube) to learn the issues, pros and cons and then apply this knowledge to your needs?

Cheers, Andrew

Thanks again for all the info, especially that last bunch of paragraphs and your group experiences with the various lenses. I've read reviews until my eyes have glazed over, so after that I learn most from actual user-owners and their observations using both lenses. As I said, I rented the G2, but I'm not sure I even want to rent the Nikon unless there is a marked improvement in IQ, which it appears there really isn't. Also so many arguments out there about the Sigma vs. the Tamron, which I didn't even raise in my question because the Tamron seemed so much nicer!

 

[CMCM]

I owned both lenses together for a few months and ended up selling the Nikon and keeping the Tamron. After much testing, I concluded that they were equally sharp so I considered their other attributes, and the Tamron came out on top for me for the following reasons:

(1) Better build quality with weather resistance

(2) Significantly faster autofocus

(3) Wider focal range

(4) Lighter weight

(5) Customization with the optional dock

The only area where I felt the 200-500 was superior was it's image stabilization, but the Tamron's is still very effective. I have not regretted my decision.

Thanks! My observations as well, plus I especially liked how you can lock the zoom at any FL while shooting. And nice to hear you think both lenses are equally sharp!

 

[CMCM]

I have the Tamron 150-600 g2 and also the Nikon 500e lens. I use the g2 lens for longer hikes and the Nikon 500e for shorter hikes.

I have found the g2 has excellent image quality, almost as good as my 500e.

A very good vc system.

Its a real advantage to have a 600mm lens for my bird photography using my d500 to give me around 750mm of focal length without a tc.

Very good weather resistance.

I like the zoom lock.

Light enough to hand shoot.

A very well constructed lens.

Photographic Life has a very good article concerning the g2 and the article convinced me to purchase the g2.

Larry

Thanks for your input, much appreciated. Yes, I read the article you mentioned, very good assessment of the lens.

Beyond good reviews, I especially like to hear what actual owners think.

I'm pretty much settled on the G2 out of the 3 options in this range (including the Sigma). The G2 is the first lens I've ever used where I came out of trying it and not wanting to return the rental.

I'm waiting for a bit of a holiday price drop, which may or may not come.

 

[Per Baekgaard]

Just to balance it a bit As TQ says, we've extensively debated this ad nauseam before on these very pages...

I had the G1 and was destined on getting the G2, and ordered it to the store to be able to check it out. They had the Nikon also, so I spent some time with both the Nikon and the G2.

My observations are based on those specific ones that I tested; there is some sample variation, but it's probably not quite as large as some claim it to be in general. But the sample variation may still be larger than the differences between the Nikon and the G2, so a good Nikon is better than a bad G2 and vice versa.

Anyway, the G2 was much better at just about everything compared to my G1 (which has been in for service and checks, and is within spec and in excellent condition).

The Nikon and G2 are more comparable. The Nikon is slightly sharper at closer distances, and at longer distances they are almost indistinguishable (at the long end). At the distances I normally shoot (birds), the Nikon is really very sharp (I've had it for 2 years now). In the additional zoom (500-600 mm) range of the G2, it looses some crispness, and a resized image from the Nikon appears about the same. In "normal" light conditions for me, the f/6.3 vs the f/5.6 means you need to up the ISO a bit in this range too, and the extra noise is maybe also part of the reason why the crispness isn't there.

The Nikon VR is phenomenal. Period.

The G2 is faster at focusing; the Nikon is about the speed of the G1.

With the above, it would mean you could flip a coin and pick either.

However, the G1 sometimes needed to be reseated (a known bug), and it didn't hit focus that well on my cameras (D800 and D500). There were too many "almost sharp" photos. The G2 did better, but when doing a sequence of e.g. 10 images of the same objects, the Nikon in my hands simply had more shots exactly in focus compared to the G2. If the G1 had maybe 20% of the shots critically sharp, the G2 had maybe 60% and the Nikon 80%.

Since this was one of the reasons I wanted to upgrade from the G1, it "flipped the coin" for me -- and I've been happy ever since, never contemplated the G2 even once more. And I've shot 10.000's of images with the Nikon, which has been dragged around in a lot of interesting and real outdoor conditions without any failures or issues at all.

 

[CMCM]

Just to balance it a bit As TQ says, we've extensively debated this ad nauseam before on these very pages...

I had the G1 and was destined on getting the G2, and ordered it to the store to be able to check it out. They had the Nikon also, so I spent some time with both the Nikon and the G2.

My observations are based on those specific ones that I tested; there is some sample variation, but it's probably not quite as large as some claim it to be in general. But the sample variation may still be larger than the differences between the Nikon and the G2, so a good Nikon is better than a bad G2 and vice versa.

Anyway, the G2 was much better at just about everything compared to my G1 (which has been in for service and checks, and is within spec and in excellent condition).

The Nikon and G2 are more comparable. The Nikon is slightly sharper at closer distances, and at longer distances they are almost indistinguishable (at the long end). At the distances I normally shoot (birds), the Nikon is really very sharp (I've had it for 2 years now). In the additional zoom (500-600 mm) range of the G2, it looses some crispness, and a resized image from the Nikon appears about the same. In "normal" light conditions for me, the f/6.3 vs the f/5.6 means you need to up the ISO a bit in this range too, and the extra noise is maybe also part of the reason why the crispness isn't there.

The Nikon VR is phenomenal. Period.

The G2 is faster at focusing; the Nikon is about the speed of the G1.

With the above, it would mean you could flip a coin and pick either.

However, the G1 sometimes needed to be reseated (a known bug), and it didn't hit focus that well on my cameras (D800 and D500). There were too many "almost sharp" photos. The G2 did better, but when doing a sequence of e.g. 10 images of the same objects, the Nikon in my hands simply had more shots exactly in focus compared to the G2. If the G1 had maybe 20% of the shots critically sharp, the G2 had maybe 60% and the Nikon 80%.

Since this was one of the reasons I wanted to upgrade from the G1, it "flipped the coin" for me -- and I've been happy ever since, never contemplated the G2 even once more. And I've shot 10.000's of images with the Nikon, which has been dragged around in a lot of interesting and real outdoor conditions without any failures or issues at all.

This is really useful, thank you! Just the kind of thing I wanted to know. I put the Nikon on my camera yesterday and found it very easy to hold and use, and the VR seemed amazing. the test shots I took at 500 were sharp. I'm really leaning towards the Nikon at this point because the photos I see from it are usually so sharp. Seems like the constant 5.6 would be good as well.

 

[Antal I Kozma]

I'm wondering if anyone has had the chance to compare or perhaps has owned these two lenses. I recently rented the Tamron for a few days, and a person at the camera shop stated he liked it better than the Nikon for a variety of reasons he outlined, but I'm curious if anyone else is familiar with these two. The Tamron I rented was surprisingly nice, and I liked several features on it that were unique to the Tamron. It's also .6 lb lighter than the Nikon.

A world war has been waged over this and there is a fair chance of peace being declared with North Korea first

I've extensively tested and used the Nikon over several years and much prefer the Tamron for what my needs are.

A few points that matter to me:

The Nikon is really 200-480mm. I shoot my Tamron at 550mm or more 90% of the time.

The Tamron is fully weather-sealed and has Tamron's best coatings.

The Tamron has a superior 3 way VC/VR system. I use mode 3 which partially stabilises the image in the viewfinder and then fully stabilises the shot at 4.5 stops CIPA. This gives me constant feedback about my technique... absolutely, vitally critical when shooting hand held at the long end. Of course, Tamron VC position 1 works just like Nikon.

The Tamron zooms out to 150mm, perfect when the subject gets large and going back is not a good option. Also great for BIFs if the subject flies close. It is possible to zoom out and not clip wings.

The Tamron has an optional dock for tuning the lens. For example, I have changed a focus range to better suit my needs. BTW, we have around 6 Tamron's in our group. There are no problems that I know of and the Gen 2's have not required any fine-tuning.

I do not know what your use cases are; however, I found this particular review very useful: https://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-g2

Good luck with your choice.

Cheers, Andrew

Hi,

I've used both extensively, have the Tamron G2 now.

Here is a link to my web site talking about the subject, scroll down in the enclosed page, there are two back to back articles of the G2. One set of images does not open up automatically but you can click on the buttons and they open.

http://naturephototrail.com/2016/10/

Best, AIK

 

[Antal I Kozma]

I'm wondering if anyone has had the chance to compare or perhaps has owned these two lenses. I recently rented the Tamron for a few days, and a person at the camera shop stated he liked it better than the Nikon for a variety of reasons he outlined, but I'm curious if anyone else is familiar with these two. The Tamron I rented was surprisingly nice, and I liked several features on it that were unique to the Tamron. It's also .6 lb lighter than the Nikon.

Cheers, Andrew

Sorry, sent my reply to TQ by accident.

Hi,

I've used both extensively, have the Tamron G2 now.

Here is a link to my web site talking about the subject, scroll down in the enclosed page, there are two back to back articles of the G2. One set of images does not open up automatically but you can click on the buttons and they open.

http://naturephototrail.com/2016/10/

Best, AIK

AIK

 

[TQGroup]

Just to balance it a bit As TQ says, we've extensively debated this ad nauseam before on these very pages...

I had the G1 and was destined on getting the G2, and ordered it to the store to be able to check it out. They had the Nikon also, so I spent some time with both the Nikon and the G2.

My observations are based on those specific ones that I tested; there is some sample variation, but it's probably not quite as large as some claim it to be in general. But the sample variation may still be larger than the differences between the Nikon and the G2, so a good Nikon is better than a bad G2 and vice versa.

Anyway, the G2 was much better at just about everything compared to my G1 (which has been in for service and checks, and is within spec and in excellent condition).

The Nikon and G2 are more comparable. The Nikon is slightly sharper at closer distances, and at longer distances they are almost indistinguishable (at the long end). At the distances I normally shoot (birds), the Nikon is really very sharp (I've had it for 2 years now). In the additional zoom (500-600 mm) range of the G2, it looses some crispness, and a resized image from the Nikon appears about the same. In "normal" light conditions for me, the f/6.3 vs the f/5.6 means you need to up the ISO a bit in this range too, and the extra noise is maybe also part of the reason why the crispness isn't there.

The Nikon VR is phenomenal. Period.

The G2 is faster at focusing; the Nikon is about the speed of the G1.

With the above, it would mean you could flip a coin and pick either.

However, the G1 sometimes needed to be reseated (a known bug), and it didn't hit focus that well on my cameras (D800 and D500). There were too many "almost sharp" photos. The G2 did better, but when doing a sequence of e.g. 10 images of the same objects, the Nikon in my hands simply had more shots exactly in focus compared to the G2. If the G1 had maybe 20% of the shots critically sharp, the G2 had maybe 60% and the Nikon 80%.

Since this was one of the reasons I wanted to upgrade from the G1, it "flipped the coin" for me -- and I've been happy ever since, never contemplated the G2 even once more. And I've shot 10.000's of images with the Nikon, which has been dragged around in a lot of interesting and real outdoor conditions without any failures or issues at all.

The Nikon is 200-480 in reality. That is too short for me as most of my Tamron G2 shots are over 550mm.

I agree the G2 is faster focusing than the Nikon. That means less missed shots for flighty birds and BIF.

If you will shoot mainly in the 200-480 range, the Nikon is a very good choice. If you want 150-575 the Nikon is not an option.

 

[Antal I Kozma]

I'm wondering if anyone has had the chance to compare or perhaps has owned these two lenses. I recently rented the Tamron for a few days, and a person at the camera shop stated he liked it better than the Nikon for a variety of reasons he outlined, but I'm curious if anyone else is familiar with these two. The Tamron I rented was surprisingly nice, and I liked several features on it that were unique to the Tamron. It's also .6 lb lighter than the Nikon.

Hi,

Following up on my previous post, here are a couple of images from being out on one of my standard routes. Lake Erie shoreline, SW Ontario. A densely grown mixed woods and shrubs trail.

There was some Golden-Crowned Kinglet, Slate-Coloured Junco, Myrtle-Warbler and Eastern-Phoebe activity.

The images were taken with the Tamron 150-600mm G2 on a Nikon D500. More to process, these two were the first ones I have selected. Down sized for the web.

Best, AIK

 

[Per Baekgaard]

The Nikon is 200-480 in reality. That is too short for me as most of my Tamron G2 shots are over 550mm.

Good you have the G2 then

I agree the G2 is faster focusing than the Nikon. That means less missed shots for flighty birds and BIF.

Possibly, if the G2 nails and tracks focus as well as the Nikon and you don't mind the faster shutter speed or higher ISO required to shoot f/6.3 instead of f/5.6. I have years of practical experience on both the G1 and the Nikon, and there is no doubt -- in my mind -- that the Nikon is a class above the G1. I trust the G2 is as well (you have used both Gs, I think).

If you will shoot mainly in the 200-480 range, the Nikon is a very good choice. If you want 150-575 the Nikon is not an option.

We've discussed this repeatedly before, and for the OP is maybe helpful to know that there is no disagreement on the actual focal length of the lenses (give and take a few mm), but there is not universal agreement that the extra focal range in the long end is that much better than simply cropping the Nikon shot. I don't see any drop in resolution at the long end of my Nikon (I did on the G1 very much, and also noticed the same on the G2 that I tested but to much smaller degree -- although it may not be the same as yours; the one I tested was an early model soon after release). I could not see that the G2 gave more resolution at 575mm vs the Nikon at 480mm. YMMV.

I stick to my statement that I've mentioned here before repeatedly: Both are very fine lenses, and capable of delivering excellent shots -- and classes above what many of us would have hoped for just 5 years ago in this price- and weight-range. The skills of the photographer (such as the ability to navigate nature and get close to the subjects) probably determines the outcome more than differences between the lenses. And there are MANY happy shooters of both lenses, and plenty of very sharp images from both.

I'm just trying to keep a bit of balance here. One isn't clearly better than the other; both are (fine) compromises.

 

[TQGroup]

The Nikon is 200-480 in reality. That is too short for me as most of my Tamron G2 shots are over 550mm.

Good you have the G2 then

I agree the G2 is faster focusing than the Nikon. That means less missed shots for flighty birds and BIF.

Possibly, if the G2 nails and tracks focus as well as the Nikon and you don't mind the faster shutter speed or higher ISO required to shoot f/6.3 instead of f/5.6. I have years of practical experience on both the G1 and the Nikon, and there is no doubt -- in my mind -- that the Nikon is a class above the G1. I trust the G2 is as well (you have used both Gs, I think).

The difference between f5.6 and f6.3 is one third of one stop, Hardly an issue for a modern sensor.

I respect your opinion. Nevertheless, my experience is different. If it wasn't, why wouldnt I own the 200-500?

If you will shoot mainly in the 200-480 range, the Nikon is a very good choice. If you want 150-575 the Nikon is not an option.

We've discussed this repeatedly before, and for the OP is maybe helpful to know that there is no disagreement on the actual focal length of the lenses (give and take a few mm), but there is not universal agreement that the extra focal range in the long end is that much better than simply cropping the Nikon shot. I don't see any drop in resolution at the long end of my Nikon (I did on the G1 very much, and also noticed the same on the G2 that I tested but to much smaller degree -- although it may not be the same as yours; the one I tested was an early model soon after release). I could not see that the G2 gave more resolution at 575mm vs the Nikon at 480mm. YMMV.

There are independent tests to the contrary. They have been posted previously

I stick to my statement that I've mentioned here before repeatedly: Both are very fine lenses, and capable of delivering excellent shots -- and classes above what many of us would have hoped for just 5 years ago in this price- and weight-range. The skills of the photographer (such as the ability to navigate nature and get close to the subjects) probably determines the outcome more than differences between the lenses. And there are MANY happy shooters of both lenses, and plenty of very sharp images from both.

I agree. Both are good lenses and produce good results in experienced hands.

I'm just trying to keep a bit of balance here. One isn't clearly better than the other; both are (fine) compromises.

The fundamental differences are: Nikon is 200-500 and the Tamron is 150-600. The Nikon is not weather-sealed, the Tamron is. The Nikon is heavier and costs more than the Tamron. To some, these may not b important factors. To me they tip the balance.

Let me put it this way: if the Tamron Gen 2 was made by Nikon and sold at its current price, it would be a no-brainer!

If the Nikon was made by Tamron and sold at the Nikon price, how do you think it would sell?

 

[Per Baekgaard]

Just to add an actual image (Nikon 200-500mm on D500): I just now grabbed my camera and took this back-yard shot to show an example of what you normally get. I've done only minimal processing in Capture NX (I normally shoot in Neutral with low sharpening, so I needed to adjust the lights a bit and add a small amount of output sharpening -- as I normally do in my workflow). The image is full-res/1:1 just cropped a bit. And yes, I would normally adjust it a bit more in terms of lighting up the dark side -- this one just to show a random shot representative of what I normally get.

Edit: Oh, the reason this is at 450mm and not 500mm is just by accident; the sparrow was a bit too close to ensure the tail would fit inside (it was moving around quite a lot), so I just noticed that I must have zoomed out a bit by instinct.


Eurasian tree sparrow, Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 on Nikon D500.

 

[Per Baekgaard]

I respect your opinion. Nevertheless, my experience is different. If it wasn't, why wouldnt I own the 200-500?

Likewise on both accounts (replacing "G2" for "200-500").

I could not see that the G2 gave more resolution at 575mm vs the Nikon at 480mm. YMMV.

There are independent tests to the contrary. They have been posted previously

Whatever lenses were tested by the independent party were not the two physical samples I had in my hands. That is what mattered to me. There are such things as sample variation, and since I didn't want to buy 10 of each, the choice was easier for me I also only know of a few places where they test multiple lenses (Roger).

The OP really need to do his own balance/counterbalance here. It is not helping to insist this is a clear-cut decision. Why do you think people buy the Nikon lens still (with its "limitations"), if the Tamron would be clearly superior?

I'm just trying to keep a bit of balance here. One isn't clearly better than the other; both are (fine) compromises.

The fundamental differences are: Nikon is 200-500 and the Tamron is 150-600. The Nikon is not weather-sealed, the Tamron is. The Nikon is heavier and costs more than the Tamron. To some, these may not b important factors. To me they tip the balance.

Well, there is more to the picture. The G1 has a history of loosing the connection to the camera -- some communications/compatibility problem, it appears. I had that happen to me frequently, and it has been reported by others as well.

My G1 also was inconsistent; shooting ten shots of the same subject yielded a larger focus variation than what I get with my Nikon. When I tested the G2 I could have bought, it showed a bit of the same behaviour, although to a lesser degree.

Given that the pros and cons of both lenses on other accounts are as the are, those two factors were enough for me to revert my decision of upgrading from the G1 to the G2, and go for the Nikon instead -- that has since delivered well above my expectation.

In Danish there is a saying "brændt barn skyer ilden" -- I guess the equivalent in English would be "once bitten, twice shy" or something

Let me put it this way: if the Tamron Gen 2 was made by Nikon and sold at its current price, it would be a no-brainer!

No. If it was made by Nikon, had the same consistency and I was certain there would not (again) be a compatibility problem, then maybe yes. There are a few other differences in the rendering between the two, but they are even less important. Also, I frequently use mine indoors for concert shots. Even 1/3 of a stop is appreciated there, I can tell you.

If the Nikon was made by Tamron and sold at the Nikon price, how do you think it would sell?

Well, if Nikon made a lens with issues, and the Tamron was better, then it would sell.

Why do people buy the Sigma S, for instance?

 

[TQGroup]

Just to add an actual image (Nikon 200-500mm on D500): I just now grabbed my camera and took this back-yard shot to show an example of what you normally get. I've done only minimal processing in Capture NX (I normally shoot in Neutral with low sharpening, so I needed to adjust the lights a bit and add a small amount of output sharpening -- as I normally do in my workflow). The image is full-res/1:1 just cropped a bit. And yes, I would normally adjust it a bit more in terms of lighting up the dark side -- this one just to show a random shot representative of what I normally get.

Per, your shots are wonderful and I enjoy seeing them.

As I remember, and correct me if I am wrong, they are of perched birds against a plain background. I understand your passion for this lens.

Eurasian tree sparrow, Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 on Nikon D500.

Here is a rainbow beater in flight taken against a tree.

It is a 100% crop from a SOOC JPG taken in November 2015. Nikon D810 + Tamron 150-600 Gen 1 at 550mm. ISO 800, 1/400 sec. at f7.1. Hand held, panned against a tree. background.

This is not post processed, just cropped. If the Gen 1 can nail focus on a swift bird like this on the D810, imagine what the Gen 2 is like on the D850/D500

FWIW, this is a reject image...


R bee eater D810 Tamron Gen 1 150-600 at 550mm f7.1 1/400 sec ISO 800 SOOC JPG 100% crop HH